You are flogging a dead horse. Only hardcore antiwar liberals care that Obama was opposed to the war from the start. Most core Dems turned against the war later and are concerned only about who can and will get us out now. To keep harping on who was the purest from the start may win debating points but I doubt it will win many votes.

That is one of the best posts I have read on this site in eons.

You wrote: "My view is that they are not going to go against the grain and nominate someone that is opposite of the will of voters. While there may be some history of this type of thing, in this election I cannot fathom them doing this. It will destroy the credibility of the nominee and seriously harm the democratic party."

I'm still a bit confused. The will of which voters? Are you talking about VOTERS or about PLEDGED DELEGATES? Your example of Nevada proves that they are not the same thing. It's entirely possible that, come April, Obama will have more pledged delegates than Hillary and fewer overall votes. So whose will should sway the superdelegates then?

I just disagree with you. I'm not citing any polls, nor are you. I'm just saying I think you're wrong to believe that harping on Obama's antiwar credentials from the start is giving him any particular edge among a large swath of Democratic voters. You believe otherwise. Good for you!

I'll give you an example, merely an anecdote. My aunt and uncle totally supported the war when it began and railed against some Senate Democrats (and antiwar marchers like you and me) for opposing it. They are lifelong Democrats, think FDR is in heaven on God's right hand. They are now rabidly antiwar. But they aren't particularly concerned about who got it right at the outset--because *they* didn't. They just want out now.

It's very easy for liberal Dems to scorn such voters. My guess is that they are the ones, in part, responsible for keeping Hillary's numbers up with working-class and older Dems. I just think proclaiming self-righteously your absolute purity on this issue isn't necessarily a winner.

But feel free to disagree!

You didn't answer my question. Say we get through the Pennsylvania primary and Obama has more pledged delegates (say, around 100) but Clinton has won more votes (say, around 75,000-100,000) overall. Whose "will" should the superdelegates follow? Just curious to hear your thinking on this.

I guess you better hope they don't vote.

Yes, but Hillary is not related by blood to Bill--even though they ARE from Arkansas!

Uh, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Latinos. More integrated? Don't experience problems? Only integrated, calm Latinos support Obama? I'm confused.

By the way, the population of Ohio is 12% African-American. That is not exactly "huge" demographically speaking. But Obama will undoubtedly win them at least 3:1.

Also, Ohio's per-capita income is 25th in the nation and falling. The economy will be far and away the biggest issue there. Obama will need to convince blue-collar Dems to vote for him. They won't do so because Salon runs front-page articles raving about his momentum.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything you say. All I'm saying is I think Obama and his supporters would be better off arguing why he's a better candidate on economic issues, health care, etc., than continuing to crow about him being right on Iraq from the start. Unless I'm missing something, he's preaching to the converted--when what he needs to do is convert some of the constituencies he's losing now.

Screw you.

but screw you anyway.

I too have friends and family serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan). I hope those you care about come home safe and sound.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But then, I was never much on all that book learnin' (spits tobacco).

can't even enjoy a pleasant FOX-bashing without bringing Hillary in for a few extra shots. You uniters! Gotta luv ya!

Apparently you are tone-deaf to irony. It's an occupational hazard, for some reason, among Obamadroids. I promise not to make a joke again.

dataguyx wrote: I contend that there are no "Clinton republicans" but that there is a chance of "Obama Republicans". Do you have an opinion about that?

Yes, I think it's very interesting. If you stand for core Democratic principles (e.g., universal health care), you're not likely to draw Republicans. "Obama Republicans" is another way of saying: my guy is a squishy centrist who doesn't believe anything. I'm sure you're not saying that.

Did you come up with that metaphor yourself? Wow, that's funny!

The level of your commentary, its depth and profundity, is just, I mean... wow.

Hillary has pissed off the left with her war vote, Obama can't convince working-class voters he has any real substance. McCain is a pathetic old scoundrel, but he's got a good chance against either of them--either because the left will desert Hillary in the general or because he'll succeed in showing Obama for the vacuous neophyte he is. It's one thing for Obama to scold Hillary for her Iraq stance in Dem primaries. It will be entertaining to see how he handles McCain in a debate on the issue.